Pages

Monday, March 3, 2014

Mammograms: New 25-Year Study Questions Them

For as long as I can remember women have been steered to yearly
mammograms as screening tools for early detection of breast cancer.
However, what most women don’t know is that if a lump or tumor shows up
on a mammogram, it’s been there for quite a while. Mammograms cannot
detect breast lumps until they are about the size of an eraser on the
end of a pencil. That’s big already! Furthermore, “For women under 50
with dense breasts, mammograms may miss a small percentage of in situ
breast cancers.” [8]

In the Resources section at the end of this blog I list the link to “The
Secret History of Mammography,” which I think everyone interested in
breast cancer issues ought to read.

Historically, mammograms did not have a very good track record. Why?
Well, in the early years of mammography machines were not calibrated
correctly, which caused excess radiation exposure, plus an increased
risk of inducing breast cancers. Mammography actually lacked “quality
control,” so …

in 1992, hearings held by the Senate Committee
on Labor and Human Resources found numerous quality issues in the
field of mammography. [1]

Those hearings led to the
Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA) on October 7, 1992, which
became effective October 1, 1994, rather late in the field of
mammography, I’d say.

The U.S. FDA was tasked with setting mammography
quality standards. Interestingly, in the first year of the FDA’s
oversight, 26 percent of mammography facilities had significant
violations, which apparently jeopardized women’s breast health, in my
opinion. Many facilities had to close as a result of MQSA and the FDA
standards.

Wasn’t it rather outrageous that breast mammography procedures were
promoted by physicians and technicians without proper safety measures in
place and accurately calibrated X-ray equipment? But then many things
can happen in medicine and pharmacology that actually may not be safely
monitored. Currently, mammography facilities are accredited by the
American College of Radiology, while three states (Arkansas, Iowa, and
Texas) have state-level alternative accreditations.

In 2003 a Harvard Law School course work requirement paper was published
on the Internet [2] that “…acknowledge[s] many of the current problems
with mammography reflect deeply rooted historical problems with the delivery of health care and the regulation of medicine.” Also, “It acknowledges that the technological limitations of mammography techniques may be contributing to the physician interpretation problem.” [3] [CJF emphasis added]

Recognizing and trying to address some of the problems still plaguing
mammography, Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro (D-CT-3) introduced H.R.3404,
the Breast Density and Mammography Reporting Act of 2013 on October 30,
2013 that

amends the Public Health Service Act to
require mammography facilities to include information
regarding the patient's individual measure of breast density in
both the written report of the results of a mammography
examination provided to the patient's physician and the summary of
that written report given to patients. Requires the summary
to: (1) convey the patient's risk of developing breast cancer associated
with below, above, and average levels of breast density; and
(2) include language communicating that individuals with
more dense breasts may benefit from supplemental screening tests and
should talk with their physicians about any questions or concerns
regarding the summary.

Breast density apparently is problematic for mammography [8] and
patients alike, since it determines exposure for readings. Here’s why,
according to IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency:

To ensure the necessary image quality with the lowest possible dose,
mammography should be performed by highly qualified
radiographers with the ability to evaluate each patient’s breast
and then select the optimum kV [tube voltage] and other exposure
parameters. [4]

Furthermore, in the paper “Danger and Unreliability of Mammography,”
published in the International Journal of Health Services
[31(3):605-615, 2001], the authors say,

Mammography screening is a profit-driven
technology posing risks compounded by unreliability. In striking
contrast, annual clinical breast examination (CBE) by a trained health
professional, together with monthly breast self-examination (BSE), is
safe, at least as effective, and low in cost. International programs for
training nurses how to perform CBE and teach BSE are critical and
overdue. [5]

In the above paper, the authors discuss the dangers of mammography screening, which include:

Radiation and Cancer Risks from Breast Compression, something women are not aware of but should know.

As early as 1928, physicians were warned to handle "cancerous breasts with care- for fear of accidentally disseminating cells"
and spreading cancer (7). Nevertheless, mammography entails tight and
often painful compression of the breast, particularly in
premenopausal women. This may lead to distant and lethal spread of
malignant cells by rupturing small blood vessels in or around
small, as yet undetected breast cancers (8). [CJF emphasis added]

During mammograms, breasts are squeezed between plates to make them flat with a pressure that some say is as much as 50 pounds or more. That pressure can cause a rupture, as pointed out above.

The BMJ study evaluated Canadian women ages 40 to 59 who: 1) had regular
mammograms and breast exams by trained nurses, and 2) those who had
breast exams alone. Surprisingly, the death rate from breast cancer was
about the same in both groups. However, one in 424 women who had
mammograms received unnecessary medical treatments, which included surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation.

Needless to say, the Canadian breast cancer study has become a
polarizing event in the divide between those in medicine who believe
mammograms save lives and researchers who claim there is no evidence to
that effect and only leaves the issue muddled. Furthermore, in light of
the Canadian study, the American Cancer Society says it is rethinking
its position on mammography and will be issuing revised guidelines
sometime later in 2014.

The BMJ study authors concluded that

…our data show that annual mammography does
not result in a reduction in breast cancer specific mortality
for women aged 40-59 beyond that of physical examination alone or
usual care in the community. The data suggest that the value of
mammography screening should be reassessed. [7]

Readers ought to know that men also can contract breast cancer, which I discuss in another chapter in A Cancer Answer
[available on Amazon.com], and undergo the same diagnostic procedures
and treatments as women, which may include mastectomy. I once had a
male client who had a double mastectomy.

What conventional oncology overlooks and categorically does not utilize
to diagnose breast cancer earlier than a mammogram can, is FDA-approved
(1982) thermography, a non-invasive, radiation-free, infra-red
photographic technique that photographs body heat, since cancer tissue
gives off more heat than non-cancerous tissues. To help women make
better informed choices about breast health issues, I devoted an
extensive chapter in A Cancer Answer to thermography. Included
in that chapter is an exceptional essay written by a Board Certified
Thermologist medical doctor, who’s been a medical thermographer since
1982.

Breast cancer can be found much earlier than before a lump or tumor
becomes the size of a pencil eraser. Wouldn’t you consider that very early
breast cancer detection? However, thermography for breast cancer
detection is not covered by healthcare insurance plans, which is due to
the politics of healthcare and apparent effective lobbying tactics
employed by mammography equipment makers directed at the FDA and
Congress. Apparently, money talks.

Even the American Cancer Society claims, “Mammography today is a lucrative, highly competitive business.”

Personally, if I were a young woman reading this article, I’d realize
the importance of getting a baseline thermogram now of both breasts so I
could ‘see’ what’s currently going on inside my breasts.

Additionally, I’d consider a thermogram a worthwhile investment in my
health and future. It doesn’t hurt; it doesn’t place ionizing radiation
into breasts that also can affect surrounding body tissue.

For the ultimate personal gift, consider surprising her with what could become a “gift for life,” a thermogram. As I say in A Cancer Answer, women ought to think of thermograms as posing for a center-spread photograph that really could save their lives.

Catherine J Frompovich (website)
is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in
Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular
Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published
in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine
authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers
and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare
professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years
and counting.

Intellectual Center Reviews

Intellectual Center provides Independent News in blog format to assist other activists, teachers, and elders with alternative news, information on social issues, and research material.

FAIR USE NOTICE: Intellectual Center (Website) may post copyrighted material not specifically authorized in accordance with Section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law allowing purposes associating learning processes. Please be advised if you intend to use such copyrighted material for personal reasons beyond "fair use," considerations, please obtain permission from the copyright owner. Learning processes encompass a vast array of issues of concern and would not be restrictive, it would offer critique and extended scholarly research.

Website may display third party authors/advertising which may not represent the views or opinions of Website or contributors. Advertisements are not endorsed as such and are intended as alternative ways to support the work at Website.